> I wasn't inexperienced (I started working full time at 16). It wasn't that I hadn't earned it.
Above middle management, political calculus dominates meritocratic concerns (in the short term). This is true in any organisation because we’re primates. You won’t “earn” your way into senior management and you won’t help your case by informally complaining.
If you want a promotion you need leverage. Relationships with (potential) shareholders and creditors, a credible threat to decamp (and cause damage), et cetera. If you can’t threaten to leave you have no leverage. If your leaving wouldn’t cause the Board and senior management pain, you have no leverage. (If you have no leverage, that’s fine—get it.)
Speaking as someone who spent a lot of their career being young (and impatient).
I was specifically told by the CEO I would be considered for the position if not for my age. I earned my place by proving my value and reliability for years.
Explaining why we discriminate is not helping those who want to see this stopped.
It's like explaining why old people get discriminated upon. Yes, there is a logic to it. No, it is not acceptable. Yes, that is how it works now. No, that is not how it will always work, humans are constantly evolving. The way you talk sounds defeatist. It sounds a lot like the old 'thats just the way it is' when people talk about change.
BTW, I totally agree with you as to the fact that the logic you are talking about is correct in that is how things work NOW. Though we have been overcoming this. Or else there wouldn't be black or women in any boardroom. Change is happening. I don't believe those who say it will always be the same.
P.S. this happened to me more than 10 years ago. I ended up quitting and since spent the majority of my life working for myself.
> was specifically told by the CEO I would be considered for the position if not for my age
I’ve been told this and it sucks. I made the mistake of trying grovelling and complaining. Both failed for, with hindsight, fundamental reasons.
If you’re ambitious, you have to develop a political sense. Keeping stock of leverage relationships is key. If you lack leverage, you can’t make demands.
If you’d represented revenue and threatened to take it elsewhere, the CEO or Board may have overcome their biases. (If not, you’d get what you wanted by effecting the threat.)
Again, what you are saying can be summed up in 'get over it' and 'find a way around it for yourself'.
That's fine. I actually did.
But it seems really inappropriate to say this here.
We are discussing the insidiousness of discrimination with the hope of socially being more conscious and finding ways to improve this.
It's kinda like going into a place with victims of racism and saying 'get over' and 'use your white voice/dress more white' when talking about the issue of racism. It's out of place, even if the suggestion is coming from a good place of wanting the best for the other person.
P.S. I had a department with large numbers and strong growth on my side for leverage, that is why the CEO considered me in the first place. The numbers took a big hit after I left. If the board would have had more people in their 40s and less in their 70s-80s, I would likely have been accepted. Explaining to me that this is politics is a bit pedantic in assuming I don't understand politics.
"Again, what you are saying can be summed up in 'get over it' and 'find a way around it for yourself'."
That's not what I'm reading in the comment. They are telling you it's a different game, they focus on what kinds of value you bring that they actually care about, and you can have leverage in such situations if you are such a person. From there, you automatically know to be the person delivering on the metrics that matter to upper management. Maybe to see if you even can before getting a job in a specific organization. They're telling you how to be more effective in the event you want to win more at that level.
This whole thread is coming from an article discussing age bias.
Not ways to avoid getting biased against. Or justifications for biases. So it makes sense to keep the comments on topic.
Even if my case wasn't an ageist thing, which is a lot of assuming on your end, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
It takes a certain type of person though to go out and doubt someone when they say they have suffered from something and have nothing to gain from it.
The assumptions are very pedantic, explaining them only furthers the pedantry. It's not that I don't understand them. It's that I understand them too well.
Above middle management, political calculus dominates meritocratic concerns (in the short term). This is true in any organisation because we’re primates. You won’t “earn” your way into senior management and you won’t help your case by informally complaining.
If you want a promotion you need leverage. Relationships with (potential) shareholders and creditors, a credible threat to decamp (and cause damage), et cetera. If you can’t threaten to leave you have no leverage. If your leaving wouldn’t cause the Board and senior management pain, you have no leverage. (If you have no leverage, that’s fine—get it.)
Speaking as someone who spent a lot of their career being young (and impatient).